PARAS NATH SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

                          [2009] 6 S.C.R. 791


                          PARAS NATH SINGH                            A
                                   v.
                      STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No.2671 of 2009)
                            APRIL 21, 2009
                                                                      8
        [TARUN CHATIERJEE AND V.S.
                               ,,,
                                   SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

          SERVICE LAW:

           Promotion - Provisional First Time Bound Promotion -       c
      Cancellation of after 10 years - Orders for recovery from
      salary of employee - Held: Employee being almost illiterate
      and belonging to Class IV, did not know implication of giving
      the undertaking-Amount not to be recovered, but the amount
 •    already recovered not to be paid back to employee.              D
          The appellant, who was promoted from a Class IV
      post, was granted provisional First Time Bound
      Promotion, but the same was cancelled after 10 years and
      the consequential amount received by him was directed
      to be recovered. The employee having failed before the          E
      High Court filed the appeal.

          Allowing the appeal in part, the Court

          HELD: The fact that the appellant was only a Class
                                                                      F
      IV employee and almost an illiterate person; he did not
      know the implications of giving the undertaking at the
      time of provisional First Time Bound Promotion. In the
      absence of any fraud and misrepresentation attributed to
• "   the appellant, and the amount being not so excessive, in
      particular, Rs.1,01,529.50 only, out of which certain           G
      amount has already been recovered from the salary of the
      appellant, a lenient view should be taken and the amount
      already paid to the appellant shall not be recovered.

                                  791                                 H
    792        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A However, the amount already recovered, shall not be paid
  back to the appellant [Para 6 and 7] [793-D··F]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2671 of 2009.

B       From the Judgment & Order dated 21.02.2007 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Patna in LP.A. No. 692 of 2006.

        M.P. Jha, Raroekbal Roy and Harshvardhan Jha for the
    Appellant(s).
c         Gopal Singh and Manish Kumar for the Respondent(s).

          The. Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          TARUN CHATIERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
       2. The appellant was appointed on the post of Orderly in             ..
  the Department of Planning and Development in the State of
  Bihar and he has since retired. In 1972, more precisely on 29th
  of August, 1972, the appellant was promoted to the post of
  Machine Boy and subsequent to such promotion, he was made
E Routine Clerk on 13th of June, 1974 and was allowed to function
  as such on the said post. On 15th of April, 1995, the appellant
  was given provisional First Time Bound Promotion with effect
  from 13th of June, 1984. After about 10 years, more precisely
  on 19th of September, 2005, the First Time Bound Promotion
F granted to the appellant was cancelled. In view of such
  cancellation of promotion, direction was issued by the State/
  Respondent to recover Rs. 1,01,529.50 from the salary of the
  appellant at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month.

G      3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order directing recovery, the
  appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature   "        •
  at Patna contending that since the time bound promotion given
  to him was at the fag end of his employment and that the
  appellant, once having worked in the time bound promotional
H post, recovery against him was not justified. The writ petition,
           PARAS NATH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.                  793
                    [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
.
,
    ~


         however, was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court          A
         and affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in a Letters
         Patent Appeal.

              4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this special
         leave petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence       B
         of the learned counsel for the parties.

    A         5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
         considering the fact that the State Authorities had allowed the
         appellant to work for about 10 years and paid the salary at the
         enhanced rate, in which the appellant had no role to play except     c
         that he had given an undertaking to the Authorities that in the
         event, his First Time Bound Promotion was cancelled, in that
         case, he would be bound to refund· the same.

                6. Having considered the fact that the appellant was only     D
         a Class IV employee in the State of Bihar and almost an
         illiterate person and did not know the implications of giving such
         undertaking and in the absence of any fraud and
         misrepresentation attributed to the appellant and the amount
         being not so excessive, in particular Rs. 1,01,529.50, out of        E
         which certain amount has already been recovered from the
         salary of the appellant by the State Authorities, we are of the
         view that a lenient view should be taken and the amount already
         paid by the State Authorities to the appellant shall not be
         recovered.
                                                                              F
             7. However, whatever amount that has already been
         recovered, shall not be paid back to the appellant.

               8. In view of the above, the impugned Judgments of the

-   "'
         High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the G
         appellant stands allowed. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal
         is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order
         as to costs.
         R.P.                                     Appeal partly allowed.
                                                                              H-